Poll: Obama Has 52 Point Lead Over Romney Among Latinos

Another poll from Latino Decisions documents the depths to which the popularity of the Republican Party has sunk among Latino voters:

President Barack Obama’s already-lofty level of support among Latino voters has reached a new high, according to the latest weekly tracking poll from Latino Decisions released Monday.

The poll shows Obama earning the support of 73 percent of Latino voters, while Romney trails with the support of only 21 percent.  It’s the first time Obama has exceeded 70 percent in the six weeks that Latino Decisions has conducted its tracking surveys.  This week’s installment also shows that more than 70 percent of Latino voters trust Obama over Romney on issues related to the economy, women, the Middle East and Latin America.

There’s no reason to go over the reasons for this as we’ve done so many times in the past year or so. The GOP’s position on immigration in general, and on matters such as the immigration laws passed by states like Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia, as well as the DREAM Act, have clearly poisoned the well with Hispanic voters. The days when a Republican candidate for President would get 44% of the Latino vote, which occurred only eight years ago, are gone and they’re not going to come back as long as the GOP maintains its current policy on immigration and related issues.

What impact this will have on the election is unclear. As I’ve noted before, the one issue about the Latino vote over the years has been the fact that they turn out at lower levels than other groups. Additionally, despite these polls, there is still some frustration with the President over both his deportation crackdown and his failure to strongly push for either the DREAM Act or comprehensive immigration reform when he first assumed the Presidency. Nonetheless, if the Obama campaign can get turnout up among this group, it will go a long way toward helping them win in states like Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia,. It should also help in Florida with the non-Cuban segment of the Latino population. Maybe after they lose all those states, the GOP will reconsider their intransigence on immigration.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Campaign 2012, Public Opinion Polls, Quick Takes, Race and Politics, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    So, let’s list the groups the GOP can no longer win:

    African-Americans, Latinos, the college-educated, young people, gays, people on either coast. You know, it’s almost as if the GOP is the party of old, rural, white bigots.

    Yep, almost like that.

  2. C. Clavin says:

    “…Maybe after they lose all those states, the GOP will reconsider their intransigence on immigration…”

    But probably not. A zebra can’t change it’s stripes.

  3. Moosebreath says:

    “Maybe after they lose all those states, the GOP will reconsider their intransigence on immigration”

    I think it will take Texas becoming a purple state (like about a decade away under current trends) before that happens. By that time, many of the Silent Generation voters pushing the GOP in that direction will have died off, leaving a party more willing to consider changing their policies to make them more open to Latinos.

  4. JKB says:

    Nice, not a mention of the Obama-facilitated of hundreds of their friends and family back in Mexico. It will be interesting to see if the Univision expose on Fast and Furious has an impact. It takes a Latino news organization to do what our overwhelming liberal white-dominated, English-speaking news media won’t do.

    Oh and best of all, more US government employees murdered by foreign nationals in foreign countries due to poor diplomatic security by the Obama administration.

    5. U.S. Agents Were Attacked with U.S. Weapons
    Victor Avila and Jaime Zapata, two U.S. Federal Agents assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, were in the process of transporting surveillance equipment when their vehicle was surrounded by cartel members and shot more than 90 times. Zapata died and Avila was seriously wounded.
    Prior to traveling into the region, Avila reached out to a supervisor expressing concerns over security that were backed by a U.S. State Department document which forbade U.S. Embassy employees from traveling in that area. The reason: It was heavily controlled by the Zetas cartel. According to an exclusive interview with Avila, the supervisor did not share his concerns. Three of the guns used in this shootout were also from a gun-walking operation, but not Fast and Furious.

  5. Vast Variety says:

    I don’t think the GOP will change it’s tune on immigration until it starts loosing Texas.

  6. michael reynolds says:

    @JKB:

    Keep frothing, dude. Your impotent rage is music to me.

  7. MBunge says:

    Well, at least JKB demonstrates that right wingers haven’t reached the “they’re too stupid to know what’s good for them” point with Latinos they way conservatives have with blacks.

    Mike

  8. Fausta says:

    So they talked to a total of 267 people in 10 states, and after a 10 minute call, 194 said they prefer Obama over Romney, give or take 10 people.

    And somebody bought it.

  9. EddieInCA says:

    With numbers like this, how long before states like Texas become purple, and states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico become solid blue – like California?

  10. Nick says:

    Dude, if only Mitt Romney’s parents were Latino, his life would be sooo much easier!!

  11. Tsar Nicholas says:

    Sadly Miguel Estrada was unavailable for comment.

    Speaking of which, when you read about Obama’s support on “issues related to the economy, women, the Middle East and Latin America,” you can’t help but realize the extent to which as a country we’ve largely become divorced from reality.

    The economy? Right now the unemployment rate among Latinos is 10.2%. That’s way higher than the comparable time periods in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. And the only reason it’s not much higher today is because vast numbers of the Latino demographic simply have given up looking for work due to horrific prospects for obtaining gainful employment. The 3-point spread at present between white unemployment (7.2%) and Latino unemployment (10.2%) is higher than it was in 2008, in 2004 and in 2000. In other words: “The country is on the wrong track and I’m miserable about my own gruesome job prospects; I’m voting in lock step to reelect Obama!” Is that ironic or oxymoronic? Or both?

    Women? The Latino demographic is very Catholic (and not cafeteria Catholic) and very much opposed to abortions. Obama supports not only abortion on demand but publicly-funded abortions.

    The Middle East? Hmm. Like Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan? OK, then, back over to you, Katie von Spacey.

    Latin America? Really? I didn’t think Hugo Chavez’s endorsement would hold so much water. On a serious note, Obama has not pursued a single major free trade pact with Latin America. His four immediate predecessors made that priorities.

    The political cognitive dissonance of the various Democrat identity groups truly boggles the mind. Although lily-white, wealthy leftists make it their business to preen and mug for the cameras about it, in truth it’s nothing over which to be proud. It’s also quite dangerous for the Latino demographic itself. Take a stroll around East L.A. Extrapolate.

  12. Herb says:

    @JKB: More Fast and Furious? Sheesh, man. This is getting to be the right wing version of “prosecute Bush for war crimes.”

    As to the subject of the post, Republican intransigence on immigration is a problem, but it’s not their only one. They’ll have to shut up on this “English only” stuff, too. It’s shocking, I know, but there are millions of native born Americans for whom English is a second language.

  13. Rafer Janders says:

    @michael reynolds:

    To add to the group of people the GOP can no longer win, let’s add women. Thankfully they don’t make up a lot of the population, so writing off their vote shouldn’t really boomerang on Republicans.

  14. legion says:

    @JKB: Thanks, JKB – you just demonstrated exactly why the GOP is losing ground in so many areas and doing so little about it: when the fact don’t say what you want them to say, find some band of mercenaries willing to take your money to tell yo what you want to hear.

    I understand that “good” polls are also showing Romney in the lead! Will they also print newspapers (remember them? your prime GOP demographic does!) that say Romney won the election too?

  15. legion says:

    @Tsar Nicholas:

    The Latino demographic is very Catholic (and not cafeteria Catholic) and very much opposed to abortions. Obama supports not only abortion on demand but publicly-funded abortions.

    And yet Obama does _not_ propose actually _forcing_ people to have abortions, which is a distinction Latino voters appear to recognize – making them smarter than the GOP base.

    The Middle East? Hmm. Like Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan? OK, then, back over to you, Katie von Spacey.

    You know what demographic has a really lousy history of showing up on election days? Foreign countries. Whereas people in _this_ country have actually watched the GOP stomp on every single green shoot the economy has tried to put out in the last few years. To wit:

    In other words: “The country is on the wrong track and I’m miserable about my own gruesome job prospects; I’m voting in lock step to reelect Obama!” Is that ironic or oxymoronic? Or both?

    No, that would be “idiotic” and “on your part”, Tsar. Obama (and the Democrats) have tried _repeatedly_ to improve things for the unemployed in general and Latinos in particular – the GOP has staunchly refused every single proposal. Latino voters are smart enough to recognize that Republicans just don’t like them and won’t lift a finger to address their concerns – even when doing so would help the country as a whole. Unsurprisingly, they’re not interested in voting for such people.

  16. Herb says:

    @Tsar Nicholas: Stephen Covey would sue me if he were still alive, but some free advice:

    Seek first to understand….then to be understood.

    Your comment proves you confuse “political cognitive dissonance of the various Democrat identity groups” with your own ignorance of those groups. East L.A.? You wouldn’t last a week in my neighborhood. Way too many carnicerias and lavanderias and panaderias for you, man.

  17. Jeremy R. says:

    @JKB:

    Three of the guns used in this shootout were also from a gun-walking operation, but not Fast and Furious.

    Bush-era Wide Receiver guns somehow hurt the Obama Admin? Not sure I get it…

  18. stonetools says:

    This represents a lost opportunity for Romney. Had Mitt been able to campaign on “moderate Mitt’s” immigration posture, they would have had a good chance of bettering McCain’s showing on Latinos. Instead, they had to campaign on the GOP’s rabidly anti-immigrant stance. This is where the GOP’s brand hurts Romney.

  19. Smooth Jazz says:

    “So they talked to a total of 267 people in 10 states, and after a 10 minute call, 194 said they prefer Obama over Romney, give or take 10 people.

    And somebody bought it.”

    Shhhh. Don’t say anything. 99.99% of his commenters and visitors are left wing types, and he needs to feed them their daily “plum”, as the Wash Post blogger would say. Anyways, this guy quotes Nate Silver, Josh Marshall, NY Times, DailyKOS, et al everyday as paragons of credibility and impartiality, so why should he caution his readers that the sample seems kind of hokey, or that Latino Decisions is arguably a Liberal Advocay Group – sort of like SEIU is to Dems. It’s nice to see a right of center commenter among the kool Aid drinkers every once in a while to break up the “Kumbaya, This is all over” chants around here. I suspect they will swarm you like flies.

  20. Herb says:

    @Smooth Jazz: Not this crap again…….

  21. stonetools says:

    I find it interesting that the conservative commenters here are agreed that Romney’s poor showing among Latinos has NOTHING TO DO with the Republican stance on immigration. Indeed, they seem to want to deny that Romney polls poorly among Hispanics.

    The term “epistemic closure” has been used in US political debate to refer to the claim that the belief systems of political conservatives are closed systems of deduction, which cannot be affected by empirical evidence. This use of the term originated with blogger and commentator Julian Sanchez.[3]

    Living proof.

  22. Mr. Replica says:

    JKB:

    Oh and best of all, more US government employees murdered by foreign nationals in foreign countries due to poor diplomatic security by the Obama administration.

    http://thehill.com/house-archive/250237-gop-embassy-security-cuts-draw-democrats-scrutiny?tmpl=component&page=

    Democrats enacted $1.803 billion for embassy security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2010, when they still controlled the Senate and House. After Republicans took control of the House and picked up six Senate seats, Congress reduced the enacted budget to $1.616 billion in fiscal 2011, and to $1.537 billion for 2012.

    The administration requested $1.801 billion for security, construction and maintenance for fiscal 2012; House Republicans countered with a proposal to cut spending to $1.425 billion. The House agreed to increase it to $1.537 billion after negotiations with the Senate.

    The administration requested $1.654 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program for fiscal 2012. House Republicans proposed funding the program at $1.557 billion. Congress eventually enacted $1.591 billion after the Senate weighed in.

    For fiscal 2013, the administration requested $2.15 billion in funding for the worldwide security protection program, a larger increase from the previous year. The House countered with a proposal to increase the program to $1.934 billion.

    The House appropriations bills funding the State Department and foreign operations for fiscal 2013 and 2012 did not receive floor votes as standalone bills. Instead, they were used or intended as starting points for negotiations with the Senate and the administration.
    (…)
    A House Republican aide said the Appropriations Committee gave Obama all of the $689 million he requested for security upgrades under the embassy security, construction and maintenance portion of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies bill.

    But House Republicans did not meet the president’s request for the department’s worldwide security protection program, which funds local guards and security enhancements such as bollards to restrict vehicle traffic, according to an aide familiar with the debate. Embassy security, construction and maintenance funding covers structural renovations, such as increasing a building’s distance from a public road and reducing vulnerability to car bombs.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), who formerly headed the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the State Department, has worked to improve the security of diplomatic facilities since the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. That effort has resulted in the completion of 94 new diplomatic facilities and the transfer of 27,000 people to more secure places, according to a House GOP aide.

    But the GOP aide acknowledged, “In these tight budget times, the committee has had to make some tough choices to prioritize funding.”

    Embassy security funding will be reduced further if automatic spending cuts established by the 2011 Budget Control Act take place as scheduled. Under the so-called sequestration process, embassy security, construction and maintenance funding would shrink by $129 million, or 8.2 percent.

    The State Department is constantly renovating its embassies and consulates to improve their security in the face of evolving threats.

    “An embassy built 50 years ago is not going to have the same security capabilities,” said a Democratic aide familiar with the program.

    Another aide with knowledge of the State Department’s efforts to improve security said the consulate in Benghazi, where Stevens and other Americans died, was considered a “temporary facility.” It was not on the administration’s request list for structural improvements for fiscal 2012 or 2013, according to the source.

    The Senate Appropriations Committee, which is controlled by Democrats, sought lower funding levels compared to the administration’s request for State Department security programs and embassy security, construction and maintenance. But it proposed more generous allocations than did House Republicans.

    The Senate versions of the State, Foreign Operations and Related Agencies appropriations bills for fiscal 2012 and 2013 proposed $396 million more than House legislation for the department’s security programs, including for local guards.

    The Senate bills for 2012 and 2013 called for $245 million more for embassy security, construction and maintenance, compared to the House bills.

  23. legion says:

    I love how gutless wonders like JKB love to come back and downvote the people who prove him wrong, but don’t have the guts to come back & actually address the points.

  24. JKB says:

    @Jeremy R.:

    Aw, your behind. Go read up on Fast and Furious then come back when you’ve got something besides long dispelled memes. Wide Receiver has been revealed to have been a completely separate program that did not let unsurveiled guns over the border. More states and more countries have been revealed to have been the target of other gunwalking programs run by the Obama administration. They even let guns walk to Indiana where they ended up in Chicago shootings.

    As for others, this is a new story developed for Spanish language television. So now tell me that the scandal won’t impact the Latino vote?

  25. @JKB:

    Oh and best of all, more US government employees murdered by foreign nationals in foreign countries due to poor diplomatic security by the Obama administration.

    How exactly does people getting brutally murdered qualify as “best of all” in your mind?

  26. Herb says:

    @JKB:

    “Go read up on Fast and Furious then come back when you’ve got something besides long dispelled memes.”

    And you got something else? Fast and Furious was a bigger bust than the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare. Let….it….go.

  27. JohnMcC says:

    Several short remarks: Mr Gallup has a complete list of presidential elections with polling predictions and final vote tallies going back to 1936. You may look at it and argue with him, Mr Jazz: http://www.gallup.com/poll/9442/election-polls-accuracy-record-presidential-elections.aspx

    Those anti-abortion hispanic women preferred Mr Obama to Mr Romney by a margin 66% to 21% according to Mr Gallup’s poll of August 23d. Which makes them able to balance several issues in my book, instead of dummies who cannot walk and chew gum like so-called “social conservatives”.

    And according to the Hispanic Congressional Caucas (using census data) at least half a million Hispanics turn 18 annually, 50,000 monthly. The states with at least half a million hispanic residents: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, Washington.

    Of course, that’s before the waves of self-deportation.

    And thank you, Mr Replica, for the actual information concerning funding for security of Consulates and Embassies.

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    jkb:

    Wide Receiver has been revealed to have been a completely separate program that did not let unsurveiled guns over the border.

    As usual, you’re wrong. Wide Receiver did indeed “let unsurveiled guns over the border.” The OIG report is here (pdf, 512 pages). See page 39:

    In April 2010, Jason Weinstein, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) in the Criminal Division, reviewed the prosecution memorandum for Operation Wide Receiver I and concluded that ATF had allowed guns to “walk.”

    And page 110:

    During both parts of Operation Wide Receiver, ATF’s Tucson II group, led by Higman, pursued an investigative strategy that affirmatively authorized illegal firearms sales to be made to straw purchasers and then declined to arrest the straw purchasers or to interdict and seize weapons despite ample evidence that the purchases were illegal.

    And page 111:

    During Operation Wide Receiver II, ATF attempted to coordinate several operations with Mexican law enforcement, intending to hand over surveillance of suspects and target vehicles to Mexican law enforcement in an attempt to identify the ultimate recipients of the firearms. These attempts were ultimately unsuccessful, in large part because the ATF agents were unable to maintain surveillance of the suspects to the border.

    (All pages numbers are according to your pdf reader, not the printed page numbers.)

    You’re developing quite a record of posting falsehoods (example).

  29. legion says:

    @JKB:
    Awww… say his name enough and he re-appears. Unfortunately, he’s still still full of month-old talking points that even GOP shills have stopped trying to convince people on. I’m glad I saw the stuff jukeboxgrad did before typing up the same debunking myself – nice work.

  30. MM says:

    @Fausta:

    So they talked to a total of 267 people in 10 states, and after a 10 minute call, 194 said they prefer Obama over Romney, give or take 10 people.

    And somebody bought it.

    You know the last time I saw this talking point heat up was right before Ron Paul won the Republican Nomination in a landslide,

  31. Fausta says:

    @MM:
    LOL!

    ‘This talking point”, as you call it, comes directly from the last paragraph of the PDF, page 5 http://www.latinodecisions.com/files/9913/4905/0355/Tracker_-_toplines_week_6.pdf

  32. jukeboxgrad says:

    fausta:

    So they talked to a total of 267 people in 10 states, and after a 10 minute call, 194 said they prefer Obama over Romney, give or take 10 people.

    You should explain where you see a problem. Do you understand anything about polling, or about sample size?

  33. anjin-san says:

    poor diplomatic security by the Obama administration.

    7 embassy/consulate attacks under Bush 43, 7 under Reagan. This stuff happens. Kinds sad to try and exploit a tragedy like this for political gain. Guess you are following Romney’s lead.

  34. michael reynolds says:

    @anjin-san:
    It’s all they’ve got. remember when they were going to be all about jobs? Now it’s Benghazi. Thin gruel.

  35. Scott O says:

    @Fausta: When conducting a poll it’s not necessary to call 100% of the people to get a reasonably good idea of the population’s sentiment. This site says there are 50.7 million Hispanics in the US and according to this site contacting 267 of them would mean a margin of error of 6%. So Romney’s support amongst Hispanics could actually be as high as 27%. Or, it could be 15%.

  36. jukeboxgrad says:

    Scott, you should show more understanding for Fausta’s problem. As Bill Clinton reminded us, Republicans have difficulty with arithmetic.

    When conducting a poll it’s not necessary to call 100% of the people

    Wouldn’t we get better results if we called more than 100%?

  37. superdestroyer says:

    @EddieInCA:

    If Texas is a purple state, then the republican party does not exist and the U.s. is solidly a one-party-state.

    Of course, the question is then how big will the government be, how high will taxes go, and what percentage of the citizens of the U.S. are totally dependent on the government, If you look at economic conditions in current day California, you want see what the future holds for the U.S. when the official policy of the government becomes open borders and unlimited immigration.

  38. swearyanthony says:

    @superdestroyer: if the US does turn into a one-party state, its because the other party has lost its mind. Look at this comment thread for examples.

  39. superdestroyer says:

    @swearyanthony:

    But what could the Republicans do that would not lose more votes than it gains and would not make the Republicans so similar to the Democrats that there is no reason for two parties.

    Mexico went 70 years with one party in total control and that is what the U.S. has to look forward to. The question is not whether the U.S. will become a one-party-state but what are the impacts of the U.S. being a one-party-state. Who are the winners and who are the loser in a undivided government situation. Who benefits from the most and who loses the most?

  40. Barry says:

    @Smooth Jazz: I love poll denialism. Keep dreaming………….

  41. Barry says:

    @superdestroyer: “If Texas is a purple state, then the republican party does not exist and the U.s. is solidly a one-party-state. ”

    And SD’s paranoia runs wild.

    The call came from inside the house!

  42. Fausta says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I love you guys!
    Since I know nothing about Latinos, and obviously do not place a lot of faith on polls with 5.6% MoE (compared to, say, Gallup’s 2%), I am indeed grateful to your collective guidance.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    Since I know nothing

    You could have stopped right there.

    I … do not place a lot of faith on polls with 5.6% MoE (compared to, say, Gallup’s 2%)

    I guess you’re saying that there’s a world of difference between this headline:

    Poll: Obama Has 52 Point Lead Over Romney Among Latinos

    And this headline:

    Poll: Obama Has 46 Point Lead Over Romney Among Latinos

    Really?

  44. Fausta says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I appreciate your sentiment.

    Poll: Obama Has 52 Point Lead Over Romney Among the Latinos they called.

  45. jukeboxgrad says:

    Poll: Obama Has 52 Point Lead Over Romney Among the Latinos they called.

    Thanks for proving, again, that you have no understanding of the concept of polling.

    If you want to become less ignorant, a good place to start is here.

  46. Fausta says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Again, Jukebox, deeply appreciate it.

  47. grumpy realist says:

    @Fausta: Um, I suggest you pick up a book on statistics and random sampling. Both get used a lot in many different fields.

    Learning such things as the concept of “average”, “mean”, and “margin of error” would be good as well.

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    a book on statistics

    A “book?” What’s a “book?”

  49. jukeboxgrad says:

    fausta:

    So they talked to a total of 267 people in 10 states, and after a 10 minute call, 194 said they prefer Obama over Romney, give or take 10 people.

    Today another poll appeared (link). It shows that Obama’s support with Latinos is 70%, as compared with 73% in the poll you’re whining about. This later poll has a sample size of 601, instead of 267. Feel better now? Or are you still struggling with the basic concept of sampling?